[shinycode]

If some day AGI happens and can exists on its own, wouldn’t that prove that intelligence is a base requirement for intelligence to happen in the first place ? AGI can’t happen on its own, it needs our intelligence first to help it structure itself

[halayli]

No, that just proves that intelligence can create another intelligence. It does not rule out that intelligence can exist due to entropy.

[raincole]

> If some day AGI happens and can exists on its own, wouldn’t that prove that intelligence is a base requirement for intelligence to happen in the first place ?

No, it would not.

[shinycode]

Thank you for your powerful dogmatic argument

[gus_massa]

Longer explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[mensetmanusman]

Intelligence first has to exist in the phase space of universal experiences possible.

[wegfawefgawefg]

It would not prove that. It would be one observed example of a new intelligence which was created by an existing one.

[avereveard]

Only if we talk about trained intelligence. Likely the requirements for evolved intelligence are different and involve being embodied, edonistic, and the pressure of a selection mechanism

[shinycode]

If a spontaneous intelligence is 3 million times more efficient that one that one who took millions of hours of work from brains (there is so much effort that there is even more work put into AI that evolution who thinly spread changes through time, efforts diluted). We either have to define that AI will never be the same as HI and can’t compete with it or it’s of the same nature as some people say on HN and for me it brings the question of intelligence needed for an other one to appear. Because we have no other history of something that complex and intelligent ever emerging. The only thing that some of us consider as intelligent as us if not more, could ever emerge because of tremendous efforts and structure and will from our part (or from our intelligence)

[avereveard]

Why? Nothing in the if sustain the conclusion. Also we did not emerge because of ourselves, so our intelligence cannot be postulated unique because of that. Absence of history is no proof either way, and we do have history of intelligence in other pila as well here in earth.

[shinycode]

I input my comment in claude.ai, after refining the discussion with the other comments, Claude reached the conclusion :

« In conclusion, describing current AI systems as "intelligent" is indeed debatable. They are more accurately described as highly advanced information processing and content generation systems based on statistical models. The term "artificial intelligence" could be considered more of a marketing term or an aspirational goal rather than an accurate description of the current state of technology. »

The subterfuge, or advanced method of information processing, that is doing the magic for the debate to be possible is the transformers.

So the whole debate probably doesn’t make any sense in the first place because we can’t even define precisely intelligence in that context and there is a prism and we compare things that can’t and shouldn’t be compared in the first place

[avereveard]

you entered your bias in a statistical parrot, and received your bias back

[shinycode]

There you close the debate. It’s a statistical parrot. No need to discuss about any emergence of anything or compare it to anything

[dist-epoch]

Our intelligence happened without an existing one. primordial cell -> intelligent human through Darwinian evolution.

[ben_w]

I would argue that evolution is a form of intelligence in its own right, albeit one very alien to us.

But that doesn't change your point, as there's no reason to require an intelligence to create evolution.

[dist-epoch]

There are some which argue that "ever increasing complexity" is a law/consequence of physics.

https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evoluti...

[mensetmanusman]

All of reality following governing laws with arbitrary precision is certainly a type of intelligence plane that came before the universe’s big bang.

[orlp]

Ah, the good old chicken and chicken paradox. Which came first, the chicken, or the chicken?

[exe34]

Do you think the same thing is required for flying? that aeroplanes can only be created by birds?

[shinycode]

Intelligence and flying are different things, a leaf falling down a tree « fly » because of laws of nature.

[exe34]

Beautiful analogy! Human intelligence is an extreme on the spectrum of animal intelligence, and evolution by natural selection is the law of nature that made it happen.